Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE
A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.
State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.
Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.
School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.
Currently, public schools in Utah are required to teach evolution, but not alternative theories. Some teachers have independently chosen to introduce the topics of creationism or divine design in their classrooms.
The issue of what to teach in schools regarding evolution has been an ongoing debate. Recent cases have gained nationwide attention.
In May, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to decide on new science standards. A three-member committee heard arguments from proponents of intelligent design and evolution. Last week, written arguments from both sides were submitted to the Board. The Board is expected to decide on new standards by the end of the summer.
One of the most publicized cases last year concerned evolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on the cover of ninth grade science books in Atlanta, Georgia. The stickers said that “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” and warned students that “material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Six parents filed a suit against the Cobb County School District, charging that the stickers violated the separation of church and state. The school district argued that the stickers were meant to open up discussion on the topic of evolution and alternative theories of the origin of life.
In January, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. The school district began removing stickers from over 30,000 books in May, although an appeal is pending on the judge’s ruling.
The new proposal in Utah is yet another iteration of the creation-evolution debate. The issue is expected to be brought up when the next legislative session begins in January.
Comments: susan@christianpost.com
narby isn't an atheist, you shameless liar.
Since you already know from my many posts on the subject that I don't believe that there is any such thing as an "atheist" , your knee-JERK response is inexplicable. Is this just another manifestation of your cognitive dissonance?
Here is only my LATEST post on the subject. (Many of your religious zealot friends were there furiously defending your religion - how did you miss it?
To: narby "More "conservatives", seeking to overturn the foundations of science merely because ..."
I report - the reader can determine who the "shameless liar" is. LOL
There are a couple non-sequitors in your comment, but they're related and I've underlined the main one.
To give systematic, even exclusive, consideration to the "natural" is not to deny the "supernatural," especially in the context of considering a bounded subject matter like natural science. It simply does not follow. It's like claiming that baseball, because of it's rules and equipment, "denies" the existence basketball.
There's an additional problem with your assumption (which you attribute to "science teachers" but appear to accept as valid) that something which is "purely natural" is ipso facto in no fashion "supernatural"; that to the extent a phenomena is "natural" any scope for the "supernatural" is eliminated to the same extent. (In my view this assumption is not merely probably false, but almost certainly so if a Creator does indeed exist. In addition I don't even think it's a theistic view but rather a deistic one. If the Creator is crowded out by the "natural," then He is at least occasionally, if not usually, absent from nature, and a God who is only occasionally present to or active in the world is the core characteristic of deism.)
In fact even staunch creationists, although they likewise apply your argument to the teaching of evolution, effectively admit (if tacitly) that the same logic doesn't apply in other exactly comparable instances. For example most creationists would affirm that God is their individual Creator, not just the Creator of their species. And certainly the Bible affirms that God creates human individuals -- and creates bodies, not just "souls." See the list of verses typically cited against abortion and you'll find a variety of affirmations that God is personally, intimately and actively involved in the creation of individual humans. He "forms [their] inward parts," "knits [them] together of bone and sinew," and the like.
But in spite of this I'm not aware of a single instance of anyone complaining about human embryology being taught as descriptive of a "pure natural process without any supernatural," even though it certainly is. Indeed if anything it's probably taught as more strictly naturalistic than evolution, if only because no one thinks of there being a conflict or need for accommodation. And yet the applicable logic is (or should be) exactly the same, especially if God is assumed to be our Creator and not just the Creator of Adam and Eve. If it follows that affirming a natural process in the creation of the species denies the Creator, then so does the same assertion regarding individual persons.
I take it you don't consider the sequence of fossils for hominids, or cetaceans, or synapsids to be evidence of a transitional sequence. If that is true, could you give us an example of what you would accept as a vertical sequence?
Thanks for the ping.
No, the ID movement does not simply point out, it unnecessarily associates the putative complexity and symmetry of the universe with an intelligent cause. The complexity and any symmetry inherent in the universe can be and has been explained without resorting to a supernatural power.
Unless ID can come up with a method of consistently differentiating designed from undesigned, and the bandwagon jumpers stop associating everything and anything to ID (read God) intelligent design is completely useless as a science and proves nothing.
You've said more eloquently something that I've tried to get across many times. I believe that God is everywhere, and is my creator. Yet I know who my parents are and understand the birds and the bees. This is no conflict.
Likewise I see no conflict with God and evolution. I believe God created it. Evolution is one of the most elegant and impressive of Gods creations. Evolution, and all life, has continued uninterrupted for billions of years. It is (so far) immortal because it is a self-correcting system, evolving new creatures as the environment changes and asteroids crash. Yet some, but not all, Christians cannot understand this Grand Creation of God's. Sad.
You are confusing evolution with Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics and Abiogenesis (and a few I've probably forgotten).
Cosmology is the science that says the universe started with a bang.
Astronomy is the science that says the universe is 15byo.
Astrophysics is the science that says stars evolve.
Abiogenesis is the science that says life evolved from chemical processes.
It appears that it will be necessary to remove all those sciences and more to meet your standards.
That's the other Monty Python scene:
CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her? CROWD: Burn her! Burn! BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch? VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
But not artiodactyl to cetacean, or synapsid reptile to synapsid mammal, correct? You are looking for one fossil that can be shown to be a transition between what, two orders, two families, genera? Or maybe even higher?
I would think that stars "change". But "evolve", no.
Unless they're talking about some feedback mechanism within galaxies where stars explode and provide raw materials for new stars.
I suppose that if "successful" stars burn for long periods while "unsuccessful" stars explode early, that could be called "star evolution". But if unsuccessful stars merely go neutron and end up cold and dark hulks, then there would be no recycling of star material and no star "evolution".
I don't know enough about Astrophysics to guess at an answer, but it's an interesting subject.
But dah-ling! It's simply divine!
You could add that...whatever god you believe in must be very proud of you for being so humble.
Did I hit a nerve?
Its unfortunate it happens.
Not so. I have proved to my satisfaction that God exists.
So this isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as such.
You may be right. Still, it might be helpful if you would spell out exactly what you mean by "science." Specifically, is there a "scientific" way to determine whether God created the world?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.